You have written some ignorant nonsense for someone who claims to be well read on the subjects.

I just didn’t know how life came about. I still don’t. Neither do evolutionists.

Evolutionists don't claim to either. You are confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Their are a number of hypothesis on how abiogenesis came about, but no one has claimed definitive knowledge on the subject...except the deluded holy rollers. Here, let me help ya out a wee bit...

The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak

In any event, to anyone of modest rationality, the evolutionist’s hostility to Intelligent Design is amusing. Many evolutionists argue, perhaps correctly, that Any Day Now we will create life in the laboratory, which would be intelligent design. Believing that life arose by chemical accident, they will argue (reasonably, given their assumptions) that life must have evolved countless times throughout the universe. It follows then that, if we will soon be able to design life, someone else might have designed us.

Try applying a bit of your modest rationality and read up on the subject before writing the biggest load of bilge I've read here for quite some time. It is not evolution, it is abiogenesis, evolution is biology, abiogenesis is chemistry, so either your lying or those those evolutionists you think you've been talking to were not evolutionary biologists.

Had the creation of a living cell been replicated in the laboratory? No, it hadn’t, and hasn’t. (Note 1, at end)

Are you sure?

Man-Made Genetic Instructions Yield Living Cells for the First Time Scientists create the first microbe to live under the instruction of DNA synthesized in the lab

You're whole post is a lot of asinine ignorance...but it did give me a laugh...then I read this which worried me slightly...

I once told my daughters, “Whatever you most ardently believe, remember that there is another side. Try, however hard it may be, to put yourself in the shoes of those whose views you most dislike. Force yourself to make a reasoned argument for their position. Do that, think long and hard, and conclude as you will. You can do no better, and you may be surprised.”

Be careful there....some people still think the Earth is flat...that water has memory and can cure illness...even those that really believe that magic carpets exist and can fly.

Someone is said to have said that a monkey banging at random on a typewriter would eventually type all the books in the British Museum. (Some of the books suggest that this may have happened, but never mind.) Well, yes. The monkey would. But it could be a wait. The size of the wait is worth pondering.

Do the arithmetic. For practical purposes, those monkeys have no more chance of getting the book than the single monkey had, which, for practical purposes, was none.

Ah ha, the old "monkey typing the works of Shakespeare" metaphor from "The Blind Watchmaker" with your own ignorance applied.

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins employs the typing monkey concept in his book The Blind Watchmaker to demonstrate the ability of natural selection to produce biological complexity out of random mutations. In a simulation experiment Dawkins has his weasel program produce the Hamlet phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL, starting from a randomly typed parent, by "breeding" subsequent generations and always choosing the closest match from progeny that are copies of the parent, with random mutations. The chance of the target phrase appearing in a single step is extremely small, yet Dawkins showed that it could be produced rapidly (in about 40 generations) using cumulative selection of phrases. The random choices furnish raw material, while cumulative selection imparts information. As Dawkins acknowledges, however, the weasel program is an imperfect analogy for evolution, as "offspring" phrases were selected "according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal target." In contrast, Dawkins affirms, evolution has no long-term plans and does not progress toward some distant goal (such as humans). The weasel program is instead meant to illustrate the difference between non-random cumulative selection, and random single-step selection. In terms of the typing monkey analogy, this means that Romeo and Juliet could be produced relatively quickly if placed under the constraints of a nonrandom, Darwinian-type selection, by freezing in place any letters that happened to match the target text, and making that the template for the next generation of typing monkeys.

I'll let the man explain it for you himself....Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker .. the relevent part is at 4 minutes, 40 seconds, but it might be an idea for you to watch the whole thing from part 1 to the end.

Right, that's your education over for now.